I. Introduction - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

[Interbane]

I think he tries unsuccessfully to water down the usual madness of 11 dimensions and different laws that string theorists build their bizarre universes from, by appealing to what on the surface suggests less such outcomes. Once you get an infinity of varied universes you are really in string theory land, whether it's admitted or not.
He tries to fool around with headache inducing theories about time.

There are many many highly intelligent people who believe these ideas hold merit. Sorry to have to appeal to authority here, but I'm saying that it's not just Carrier, or even only a handful of people. What theory of time do you subscribe to? A model or B model? No model? Flann model? Yes, it's headache inducing, but that doesn't mean it isn't grounded on understanding.

Carrier maintains that the Theistic explanation is poor and intellectually deficient. I'm going to provide a link to a discussion by three Christian thinkers from Oxford University. Alister Mc Grath, John Lennox and Keith Ward. The subject is Atheism,Science and God. It's on youtube. I can't get a working link. Sorry.

It's always the same few people. The supreme arrogance to think that a small fraction of a percent is correct, when the consensus says otherwise. I've been over their ideas many times, and I apologize for sounding rude, but I don't find the ideas holding any water. How old is the youtube video?

He just waves the magic wand ala Krauss and hey presto! it creates itself.He desperately wants to eliminate the problem of a beginning from nothing but up his sleeve is something,just as with Krauss.

I think he makes an excellent point about which brute fact we accept. No wand waving or magic. Just good reasoning. Rather than give a negative generalization, where do you find issue with it?

[ant]

Interbane wrote;

There are many many highly intelligent people who believe these ideas hold merit. Sorry to have to appeal to authority here

"Therefore, only evidence (ultimately in the form of basic experiences which support the probability or explanatory merits of a claim ) can ground any belief whatsoever, for there is nothing else. These demonstrations need not be absolute, or even detailed. It is enough that I have any evidence at all. My belief can then be proportioned to the amount and strength of evidence I have and amended if and when it turns out to be mistaken" - Carrier

Not only are these beliefs held by intelligent people totally ungrounded by the evidence of basic experience, they undoubtedly always will be ungrounded.
And if there is no evidence that can possibly falsify these beliefs (is there? Explain please) said beliefs are not amendable.
And herein lies once again the importance of falsifiability. If it is not possible, then additional evidence will always confirm your belief in the hypothesis of choice.

[Interbane]

Not only are these beliefs held by intelligent people totally ungrounded by the evidence of basic experience, they undoubtedly always will be ungrounded.

Right. Did the information from scientific experiments magically jump into their heads? Or the information contained within books and works of previous scientists and philosophers? I'm not sure what you're saying ant. Our total life's experience is the collective sum of everything we've learned. Which includes proper method. Belief in a multiverse is grounded in proper method, which is grounded in basic experience.

And if there is no evidence that can possibly falsify these beliefs (is there? Explain please) said beliefs are not amendable.

Which beliefs? The speculative multiverse theories? One of the speculative god hypotheses?

And herein lies once again the importance of falsifiability. If it is not possible, then additional evidence will always confirm your belief in the hypothesis of choice.

So, how do you falsify the idea of a god? No matter what aspersions you cast on the naturalistic answer, they apply to a deity as well. As I've repeated a number of times now, the scientific method is not what is used to select between these ideas.

[ant]

..,the multiverse is eternal, in the sense that it exists at every point of time that exists, has existed, or ever will exist. And for that reason it did not come "from" anywhere. There was never a time when it did not exist, so it did not come from "nothing" because there has never been "nothing - Carrier

What effect would an eternal universe have on entropy?
If the "brute" law of entropy is active in an eternal universe, at what point would dissorder completely govern order and why?

If conscious beings imprint (my word, not Carrier's) an arrow of time onto an "eternal" universe that has no beginning or ending, how is it that our experience is NOW? Would not our point of experience on an arrow of time not even be possible?


BUMP

[Interbane]

If the "brute" law of entropy is active in an eternal universe, at what point would dissorder completely govern order and why?

What is a brute law? All entities within the universe exist if the universe exists. The root of their operation is another matter. The various multiverse theories take this into account. There is no set of laws that is absolute. The laws are different across universes, varying in type and intensity. Entropy in our universe would be reversed or even absent in another. At least, I think that's how the theory plays out.

[Interbane]

If conscious beings imprint (my word, not Carrier's) an arrow of time onto an "eternal" universe that has no beginning or ending, how is it that our experience is NOW? Would not our point of experience on an arrow of time not even be possible?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Why do we experience the present rather than all points on the timeline? Carrier digs into this.

I'm not sure why you think our experience is impossible given popular understandings of the thermodynamic arrow of time. I'm pretty sure I experience things...

Not to say I fully understand time. But I have a decent feel for what's being conveyed.